Lawyers major beneficiaries of Labour policy

Labour’s housing policy might win votes from fellow-xenophobes and the economically illiterate desperates who think banning a tiny number of people from purchasing property will make a difference to house prices.

Labour’s policy to restrict foreigners from purchasing a home will hit Kiwis in the pockets and will line lawyers’ wallets, ACT Leader John Banks said today.

On Radio New Zealand this morning, David Shearer confirmed that Labour’s policy would put the onus on conveyancing lawyers to determine whether those purchasing a home are New Zealand citizens or permanent residents and are buying the home for themselves with their own money

“Under Labour’s policy, when any New Zealander buys a house, a lawyer is going to have to establish whether or not they are a foreigner.

“As there is no list of foreigners handy, every purchaser will have to be questioned by their lawyer and will have to prove their citizenship.

“Labour also expects lawyers to prove that the purchaser will be the beneficiary of the purchase and is not purchasing the home on behalf of someone else. But how would they know? Lawyers only know what they’re told by the purchaser.

“Labour’s dopey ban on foreigners purchasing housing is going to cost every New Zealander through increased legal fees and more red tape.

“It is recent immigrants to New Zealand who will sadly come under the most scrutiny from this policy that is not actually going to do anything to solve the problem of housing affordability.

“Instead of focusing on this kind of dog-whistle claptrap, Labour should be doing something about the real cause of the housing crisis – the lack of land supply for residential development,” Mr Banks said.

The policy will generate more work for lawyers as people seek to circumvent the restrictions by, for example, setting up companies registered here with resident directors.

One of Labour’s other polices, the capital gains tax, will also provide opportunities for lawyers as people seek to find loopholes.

There will no doubt be other new or increased taxes under a future LabourGreen government.

They too will provide extra work for lawyers from people seeking to minimise their liability just as tax increases under the 1999-2008 Labour governments did.

Labour in its early days aimed to govern for the workers. These days its policy provides a lot more gains for lawyers.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 at 10:15 am and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

On another blog I posted this poser: Suppose I am an elderly NZer without a family. I decide to leave my home in NZ to a non-resident. Following my death would the Labour enforcers confiscate the home from the intended beneficiary of my will? How would they know whether the beneficiary/owner was a non-resident? Annual declarations from all NZ real property owners?
This Labour idea doesn’t warrant the description “policy” as it is too small minded/tacky/unworkable/bigotted to be described as a policy.

I am amazed the lawyers dont know how to trace a trust. Im amazed you say it affects ony a tiny percent of the market
Im amazed you call it xenophobic- theres no fear here its only rational policy which most of the rest of the world does.
I will never read this blog again as first impression count and this is clearly poor cerebral material

Ok Lawyer
How hard is it to look up a trust and find the owner, if you are so inept you cant then you just sign that you couldnt find out who the real owners are and if the owners dont want to prove it to you then they are dodgy and you should not sign.

I will never read this blog again as first impression count and this is clearly poor cerebral material

Take a deep breath Martin – from what you have said we might conclude that you think that this Labour Party policy is a good policy and are now disconcerted to find that there are many of your compatriots who don’t agree.

And now rather than engage with those with whom you disagree and try and come to an understanding of their point of view you choose to withdraw in a huff.

Of course this is typical of how the Labour party and its supporters react in the 21st century and it has everything to do with why they are floundering in the polls and in everything else,

Paranormal
The trust says who the benefactors are idiot, if for your out there dodgy ones that dont then get them to set it up so it does otherwise if it quacks its a duck and you cant sign as a lawyer that you know who the benefactors are then.

A tiny portion of the market- funny stuff.
Perter thompson today said that 45% of auctions were going to aisans in Auckland.
John kEy shouldnt be in South Korea, he supports the commies, the communists have won this country by stealth

Customs doesn’t deal with Trusts though does it? How many Trusts do you know that have passports?

The problem is not working out whether an individual purchaser is a resident or not. It is working out who the individual benefactors of a Trust are the first place. As already pointed out, the trustees are not always the same people as the beneficiaries. And what about trusts that have a mix of overseas and NZ residents as beneficiaries?

One practical way to address this problem would be to lump all overseas and ‘corporate’ purchasers together as one group and tell them they have to prove the benefactors of the purchase are (or are going to be) NZ residents. Such as seems to be the Hong Kong way:

“A new property tax was introduced for overseas buyers in Hong Kong just before Christmas to cool home prices. Non-local and corporate buyers must pay a 15 per cent tax.”

That is effectively what would happen anyway. In obscure situations, beneficiaries of Trusts would have the onus put on them by their lawyers to prove residency. Lawyers are way too smart to take responsibility on behalf of their clients where there is uncertainty/risk. So Labour might as well say that everyone except NZ citizens/residents purchasing in their own name will have to provide proof of their rights to purchase.

When did i say i could?
All i know is that 45% of Auckland arent asians and the communist banks in china are giving cheaper loans to asians than my mates can get.
You must hate Aucklanders if you think the govt is doing a good job making us go up for a family home against all these Asian property speculators in Auckland unless you think 45 % of Auckland is actually asian?
You must be so glad that so many of these high paying jobs moving to AUckland are paying rent to china banks and that the accommodation benefit payments are flowing back out too.

You must be confused to think you made a point, but you a better than kiwiblog so well done.
My points being consistent all along if not nzer then you cant buy an existing house. This person you talk of could try for residency then we can see if we want them.

Well that would be mighty unpopular Martin. It could inconvenience a lot of people unnecessarily and add to their costs when changing properties. What if a Family Trust names beneficiaries as seven children from a blended family comprised of four being born (and living) overseas and three in NZ, eg. a divorced British mother who had her kids there came to NZ and married a divorced Kiwi father whose kids were born here? Would that Trust be allowed to trade property in NZ with a mix of NZ residents and non-residents as beneficiaries?

Hi tracey, i couldnt work out to reply under that, but it will be a lot cheaper than being outbid time and time again and as it should reduce price rises the longtern mortgage payments will have a lot knocked off.
Yes if that trust has non nz citizens then yes it shouldnt be allowed too

POs Tracey i dont why getting a lawyer to check you are entitled willl add that much already especially if you are not dodgy so can show that straight away.
How much it costs depends on how lazy or dodgy you are

How you feel about the extra time and cost might depend on where in the country you live. One of my family member’s Family Trust has seven beneficiaries. As you might be aware, family members are not always on happy terms and having to get each one to provide a copy of their passport or driver’s license could actually make trading the assets very difficult compared to how it is now for people from whom there is nothing to be gained from inconveniencing. It could even allow individual beneficiaries to have inappropriate control over the Trust’s activities (ie. they could prevent trading of the Trust’s asset(s) by withholding their proof). As many Trusts have a legal Trustee – the lawyers are bound to love the complexity!

Fail. If the testator had left the non-resident a car or a piece of jewellery the Labour apology for a policy wouldn’t be relevant. The mere fact that it happens to be realty springs the envy guns of Labour. The forced sale which you have earlier advocated is by its nature a product of a totalitarian regime, it matters not whether the regime has germinated from communism or some other ideology, it remains ugly and brutish. This is what you champion.

Yes i suppose that true, but its impossible to do anything that wont cause a few difficulties to some people. My opinion is that its worth the benefit for other nzers who get along ok, or arent in trusts

nope, everyone incl aussies taking back the rental payments there and ticket scalping on nz homes.
If those asians are accessing money cheaply where other nzers cant ie chinas communist banks and also corruption money trying to get out of china then yes i do have a problem.

Hey Martin. The only good thing you have achieved by your commenting today is to make me appreciate the usual commenters here. Cheers to Andrei, Tracey, Para, JC and others I often debate with. After reading Martin’s incoherent ramblings, you guys don’t seem so bad after all.